Bachmann 94xx

[Clearwater]

For starters I’d add:

39xx

36xx

De Glehn Atlantics

Atlantic variant of Saint class

THe Great Bear

517

[JimC]

You'd think the Duke and Bulldog classes would be obvious changes to be rung on the Dukedog chassis, slightly surprised neither has turned up yet, although they only just ran into the BR era.

The Atbaras and Flowers - effectively smaller boilered versions of the Cities are perhaps less likely as they didn't make it out of the 1930s.

A new 4300 is I suggest well overdue.

The small wheeled pre grouping pannier tanks - the 850s and 2021s - lasted well into the BR era and the 2021S could share a chassis with a 1600. A couple of the shorter 850s even had saddle tanks into the BR era.

[The Johnster]

On lengths, I reckon there was/is a horrendous cockup in CJ Freezers' 94xx drawing in Railway Modeller and reprinted in his book "Locomotives in Outline GWR" where the back of the locomotive is ~10 inches too short. I tried scratchbuilding one as a teenager and gave up when it didn't look right, but didn't figure out the error until I was making drawings for the below.

 

I make the 2721 365", 6400 373", 8750 374" and 9400 398". (sorry about the inches, my electric sketches are scaled 1mm = 1 inch)

 

The 54/64/74/16 series was a much lighter locomotive with a smaller boiler than the 2721s/57s with greater RA.

My reading of the drawings makes the 2721s and contemporaries 9in shorter at the front than the 57s, which gives the pre group large classes a distinctive truncated look.  The 54/64/74s were only a couple of inches longer than the 2021s at the front so the effect is less marked.

 

I reckon you are right from my own attempt to work up a Hornby 2721, the effect enhanced by the older locos higher set tanks and parallel chimney.

 

I have always thought of the 94xx as a development of the 2252, which shares a boiler and frame, rather than a continuation of the previous pannier series, a new thing altogether in 1947.  It needs to be viewed in the light of the GW's then quarter century old committment to replace such of the locos it had picked up at the grouping as could not be sensibly rebuilt and brought up to scratch; the early BR locos were intended as replacements for the likes of TVR O1/2/3/4 and Rhymney S class.

[The Johnster]

I would applaud a 16xx, which is small enough to go in 'starter sets' as well.  It is an equivalent in some ways to the J72, which is always popular.

 

But I want my 94xx, and a current 8750, first!

 

The problem with the older, Churchward and previous, locos is that they require a big investment and commitment to providing suitable stock to run with them in pre Great War liveries.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I was expecting them to do the 74xx and late 64xx as a follow up to the early 64xx. It isn't exactly that bad a job to do for the late 64xx, the only really obvious difference is the cab roof and bunker top corner. The 74xx is a bit more complex and would need more part retooling but the design required to get there isn't great. It took me a couple of evenings to do the main changes to the cab roof/bunker area, ATC box change, lever reverse, tank side handrail and remove auto jumper box. I left the brake hangers but did add some missing conduit, lamp irons and running plate handrails,

[The Johnster]

To continue from Chuffing's new thread; that CAD looks awesome and you are right; I am very pleased to see it!  Pleased to see that the version shown is the BR 'production' one, with no cover valance over the cylinder front, the version I want to put 8448 number plates on; hopefully this will be the first produced!   

 

Liking the lamp irons and general hunched look of this powerful brute, and, can it be true, let joy be unconfined, I see no coal in the bunker!  Do people actually listen to me sometimes!  Don't get your hopes up too high, Johnster, even a half full bunker is a step in the right direction, and keep your fingers crossed....

 

Today's been a good one, one way and another; this news plus the arrival of my number plates from Modelmaster Jackson Evans!

Edited September 3, 2018 by The Johnster

[Steamport Southport]

I don't think I've bought a new RTR steam locomotive that didn't have removable coal for a very long time.

 

Removing the thing without damage to vents, etc. is a different matter....

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

Locos bought in the last 2 years, current production at times of buying, from which it has proved unwise to continue removing the coal due to the likelihood of damaging the model; Bachmann 4575, 57xx, Hornby 42xx.  I had no problem with a Baccy 64xx.

 

This is one of my soap boxes.  In real life, a steam loco only carries a full load of coal at the beginning of it's day's (or night's) work, and most of the time the bunker will be empty enough for there to be no coal visible over the edges while the loco is in service.  If you are modelling a main line terminus with long distance trains arriving, their bunkers should be empty or close to it; I have certainly heard stories of Canton Castles and Britannias running in to Paddington on nothing but coal dust since Southall!

 

I would prefer RTR manufacturers to model empty bunkers, perhaps including a packet of coal in the box, as it is much easier to fill a bunker with the amount of coal you want than to remove the plastic or cast metal coal that only lasted for the first half hour or so of the loco's duty anyway.  If you can't remove the plastic coal, which to be honest doesn't look much like coal, you're only recourse to obtain realistic coal is to glue more coal on top of the already full bunker or tender, making the situation worse!

 

Let's have easily removable cab roofs so we can insert crews in there without being a fully trained gynaecologist as well, please. I refer you to Tomparryharry's views on top feeds and other boiler furniture which is more easily added than removed, but this is not an issue that affects the 94xx; the likely problem was always going to be cover plate ahead of the cylinders that bedevillied the Lima and identified it as one of the GW ten, but Baccy seem to have addressed this, kudos to them.  

[Black 5 Bear]

Johnster, the Hornby Britannia's Oliver Cromwell and Lord Rowalian came with a sealed coal bag as an accessory.

Great idea as you say, can't understand why they never continued with this.

[tomparryharry]

Deleted post: Memory loss! Sorry!

Edited September 6, 2018 by tomparryharry

[The Johnster]

As of course does the Lima body you kindly donated to my project, now close to completion as it has number plates and only needs the red dot route availability for as much as I'm going to do to it to be done; thank you again for the kickstart to what good old fashioned modelling and a way to stop me worrying about the Bachmann. 

 

But the Bachmann will be an improvement, and I will be buying it.  Number plates, crew, and coal will be transferred, and the Limbach retired; there will probably be more work for it's chassis, though!

 

And I can't help wondering how your resolve will hold when you see the new model on the shelf, looking at you like that.  'Take me home, please take me home, it's so lonely here and I never get to operate, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze...'.

[Pinehill]

Locos bought in the last 2 years, current production at times of buying, from which it has proved unwise to continue removing the coal due to the likelihood of damaging the model; Bachmann 4575, 57xx, Hornby 42xx.  I had no problem with a Baccy 64xx.

 

This is one of my soap boxes.  In real life, a steam loco only carries a full load of coal at the beginning of it's day's (or night's) work, and most of the time the bunker will be empty enough for there to be no coal visible over the edges while the loco is in service.  If you are modelling a main line terminus with long distance trains arriving, their bunkers should be empty or close to it; I have certainly heard stories of Canton Castles and Britannias running in to Paddington on nothing but coal dust since Southall!

 

I would prefer RTR manufacturers to model empty bunkers, perhaps including a packet of coal in the box, as it is much easier to fill a bunker with the amount of coal you want than to remove the plastic or cast metal coal that only lasted for the first half hour or so of the loco's duty anyway.  If you can't remove the plastic coal, which to be honest doesn't look much like coal, you're only recourse to obtain realistic coal is to glue more coal on top of the already full bunker or tender, making the situation worse!

 

Let's have easily removable cab roofs so we can insert crews in there without being a fully trained gynaecologist as well, please. I refer you to Tomparryharry's views on top feeds and other boiler furniture which is more easily added than removed, but this is not an issue that affects the 94xx; the likely problem was always going to be cover plate ahead of the cylinders that bedevillied the Lima and identified it as one of the GW ten, but Baccy seem to have addressed this, kudos to them.

 

So very true especially the cab roof removal! How much time I have spent trying to get the damn crew inside a tank engine, let alone in a decent pose!

Cheers.

[tomparryharry]

As of course does the Lima body you kindly donated to my project, now close to completion as it has number plates and only needs the red dot route availability for as much as I'm going to do to it to be done; thank you again for the kickstart to what good old fashioned modelling and a way to stop me worrying about the Bachmann. 

 

But the Bachmann will be an improvement, and I will be buying it.  Number plates, crew, and coal will be transferred, and the Limbach retired; there will probably be more work for it's chassis, though!

 

And I can't help wondering how your resolve will hold when you see the new model on the shelf, looking at you like that.  'Take me home, please take me home, it's so lonely here and I never get to operate, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze...'.

Sorry Johnster, my resolve is solid. I'm happy with what I've got. After all, I'm working on a model railway.....It needs to look right, and work well. I can achieve that without too much fuss. The extra funds required will be used for more wagons.. Not enough wagons...

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[The Johnster]

I agree, never enough wagons, especially minerals in our cases!  Never enough panniers, either, and of course you would have to factor in that a new Bachmann 94xx would make your existing Limbachs look a bit lo-fi in comparison; not all improvements are necessarily a good thing in all cases, and if acquisition of a Baccy 94xx would effectively reduce your 94xx fleet from 2 to 1 your resolve may well be strong enough.

 

But I bought a secondhand Bachmann 57xx at Lord and Butler's a while ago when I already had a perfectly serviceable Mainline one (which justified my purchase by dying on me a few weeks later) purely because it looked at me like that.  It was the brass spectacle plates; I fell completely in love on the spot, lost all control, and started handing money to Peter Lord; he smiles like a shark when you do this, all friendly but look at those cold, black, soulless eyes counting...  To be fair, £55 for a s/h pannier in perfect condition wasn't bad, and she's more than justified herself; a near perfect runner and a Thomas, a Really Useful Engine.

 

I restrained myself down there a couple of weeks back in the matter of a nicely weathered 56xx recent enough to have NEM couplers for the same price, and regret it now...

Edited September 6, 2018 by The Johnster

[tomparryharry]

I agree, never enough wagons, especially minerals in our cases!  Never enough panniers, either, and of course you would have to factor in that a new Bachmann 94xx would make your existing Limbachs look a bit lo-fi in comparison; not all improvements are necessarily a good thing in all cases, and if acquisition of a Baccy 94xx would effectively reduce your 94xx fleet from 2 to 1 your resolve may well be strong enough.

 

But I bought a secondhand Bachmann 57xx at Lord and Butler's a while ago when I already had a perfectly serviceable Mainline one (which justified my purchase by dying on me a few weeks later) purely because it looked at me like that.  It was the brass spectacle plates; I fell completely in love on the spot, lost all control, and started handing money to Peter Lord; he smiles like a shark when you do this, all friendly but look at those cold, black, soulless eyes counting...  To be fair, £55 for a s/h pannier in perfect condition wasn't bad, and she's more than justified herself; a near perfect runner and a Thomas, a Really Useful Engine.

 

I restrained myself down there a couple of weeks back in the matter of a nicely weathered 56xx recent enough to have NEM couplers for the same price, and regret it now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never count your regrets, to allay this, merely post over your 56xx under plain cover to me, and I will say a prayer for you next time I go to prayers ( I'm praying for an Aberdare).

 

There, simple, wasn't it?

 

He He He,

 

Ian.

[Budgie]

Never count your regrets, to allay this, merely post over your 56xx under plain cover to me, and I will say a prayer for you next time I go to prayers ( I'm praying for an Aberdare).

You could renumber it 6622, and you'd have an Aberdare 56xx.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Johnster, the Hornby Britannia's Oliver Cromwell and Lord Rowalian came with a sealed coal bag as an accessory.

Great idea as you say, can't understand why they never continued with this.

 It's chinese coal, melts all over the firebars... But in earnest an an excellent idea, and I too want empty bunkers for preference but apparently that is 'unpopular'.However an easily removed coal moulding or casting is acceptable

 

Locos bought in the last 2 years, current production at times of buying, from which it has proved unwise to continue removing the coal due to the likelihood of damaging the model; Bachmann 4575, 57xx, Hornby 42xx.  I had no problem with a Baccy 64xx....

Let's have easily removable cab roofs so we can insert crews in there without being a fully trained gynaecologist as well...

 I can only help you with Bach's 57xx on which my 'hamfist' level skills proved adequate, Remove all the screws in sight from the body underside at the rear end, flex it about a little to help break the cement tacked joints, and the whole bunker end including rear spectacle plate and cab doors can be removed from the cab and footplate, for easier surgical removal of the moulded 'coal' and the simplest possible crew implants.

[The Johnster]

Any advice on the Bachmann 4575, 34; this one has defeated all efforts to dismantle it non destructively so far; I am nervous of pushing the brutality too far!  The same goes for a Hornby 42xx.  

[adb968008]

Any advice on the Bachmann 4575, 34; this one has defeated all efforts to dismantle it non destructively so far; I am nervous of pushing the brutality too far!  The same goes for a Hornby 42xx.

 

I’ve dismantled one of these a few years back, found they do break out to many pieces, the tanks are a separate mound from the frames and boiler as I recall, required a bit of faith when I force lifted the tanks off the frames. You do need to undo every screw.. no matter how little and inconsequential.

[Chris Chewter]

The Spring 2019 Bachmann times indicates that an EP version of the 94xx pannier should be arriving soon.  

 

Interestingly, whilst browsing the Bachmann 2019 catalogue, it indicates that the loco would be fitted with a firebox flicker function.  It'll be interesting to see if that's better than the Hornby 28xx back in the 90s!

[The Johnster]

Good news.  

 

IIRC there was firebox 'glow', not flicker, on the Triang M7, which also had an opening smokebox and detail in there, as long ago as the 60s.  I'm ambivalent about this sort of thing; done badly it can be gimmicky, and I have to say I don't associate this sort of behaviour with blue box items.  It could be effective if it responds to the load the loco is pulling and is synchronised to the 4 per driving wheel revolution chuffs, especially if it is visible beneath the loco through the firebars.  But if not, and it is continuous and does not respect that firedoors are sometime shut, it will not cut the mustard on my layout and one can only hope that the bulb can be removed or obscured.

 

If it's a DCC thing, then this doesn't affect me, Luddite that I am, of course.  But even if it works well and on analogue control, I'm still not sure I'd want it as, if I have it on a 94xx, I'll want it on all my other locos as well...

 

What next, embers that drop through your firebars and set light to the sleepers?

[The Fatadder]

Another case of justifying a higher price point with "added value" gimmicks features that add penny's to the cost and pounds to the price

 

 

[The Johnster]

Hope not.  It’s potentially a good idea, despite my ambivalence.  But there are, IMHO, better features; a revisit of opening smokebox doors, perhaps, attachable/detachable lamps, removable roofs so you can put crews in, empty coal bunkers, moving reversing levers (DCC, and real coal.

[gwrrob]

Forget the gimmicks, give me haulage capacity every time. 

[GWR8700]

I like the idea of a flickering firebox but if it’s within a closed cab anyway (possibly with driver and fireman) will you be able to see it?

 

I was considering adding a flickering firebox to some of my locos but I hadn’t even considered the tank engines with closed cabs for that very reason.

Edited March 15, 2019 by GWR8700